Sousa v. N.L.R.B., 893
| Decision Date | 23 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 893,893 |
| Citation | 817 F.2d 10 |
| Parties | 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1057, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,114 Edward Ramos SOUSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Samuel Kaynard, Regional Director, Region 29, N.L.R.B., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 86-6215. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Edward Ramos Sousa, pro se.
Pamela R. Perron, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y., Robert L. Begleiter, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before OAKES and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and METZNER, District Judge. *
Edward Ramos Sousa, appearing pro se, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charging his employer, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") with discriminatory action. The complaint was ultimately dismissed by the EEOC, and notice thereof given by letter dated August 16, 1985. The court below held that Sousa had constructive notice of the letter as of August 31, 1985, and that his complaint filed on October 8, 1985, was untimely.
The letter advised Sousa that he had a right to file a civil action in the federal district court within thirty days of receipt of the notice of dismissal. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16(c). The letter was sent by certified mail to a post office box maintained by Sousa.
The usual claim check for certified mail (PS Form 3849) was attached to the envelope. The check consists of two parts separated by a perforation. The main part identifies the letter, its addressee, etc., and provides space for the addressee's signature which acknowledges receipt of the letter. The second part is stapled to the letter, and under the word "Date," appears a stamped notation of "AUG 31 1985." Under the heading "1st Notice," the date "9/5" appears in ink, obviously written over the stamp. "AUG 31 1985" represents the date the letter was received at the post office. When delivery of certified mail cannot be personally effected, the main part of the form is placed in the addressee's mailbox, whether at home or at a post office, notifying him that the certified mail can be picked up at the post office. See Hornsby v. United States Postal Service, 787 F.2d 87, 91 (3d Cir.1986). "9/5" represents the date the first attempted delivery was made. Consequently, only the main part of the check was available for Sousa at his box on Thursday, September 5, 1985. In order to get the letter, Sousa would have had to take the notice to the proper counter in the post office and sign it before receiving the letter. This was done on Tuesday, September 10.
Sousa filed his complaint on October 8, 1985, which would be timely filing if September 10 is considered "the receipt date of the decision." The filing is three days late if Sousa is considered to have had constructive possession of the letter on September 5.
There are cases discussing constructive possession in connection with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1) which requires that actions by nongovernmental employees for Title VII relief must be commenced within ninety days "after the giving of [such] notice." In Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers, etc., 585 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1978), the court eschewed constructive notice when the claimant's wife failed to tell her husband of the receipt of the letter. The same court, however, found constructive notice when the attorney for the claimant received the notice. Jones v. Madison Service Corp., 744 F.2d 1309, 1312 (1984). In Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 754 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir.1985), the court disagreed with the reasoning in the Archie case, supra, and said that notice was given to the claimant at the place he indicated, and since it was received at that place by the claimant's wife, there was actual, not constructive, notice. The court held that the giving of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ID v. Westmoreland School Dist.
...dispute over whether lawyer's receipt of EEOC letter begins running of limitations period for client); Sousa v. Nat. Labor Relations Bd., 817 F.2d 10, 10-11 (2d Cir.1987) (resolving dispute over exactly when plaintiff received EEOC letter where EEOC sent the letter by certified mail, but th......
-
Sundaram v. Brookhaven Nat. Laboratories
...mail was placed in the plaintiff's post office box on September 5 but he did not retrieve the letter until September 10. 817 F.2d 10, 10-11 (2nd Cir.1987). The court expressly premised its decision, however, on the determination that "[a] 5-day delay, which included a weekend, is not an unr......
-
Zwick v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
...post office box for a long period of time might result in a" time-barred claim, Zillyette , 179 F.3d at 1341 n.3 (citing Sousa v. NLRB , 817 F.2d 10, 11 (2d Cir. 1987) ), even if, as in some instances, some delinquency is attributable to coordination with a third party. See, e.g. , Law v. H......
-
Redding v. Dist. of Columbia
...the ninety day period begins to run when the letter is delivered to the most recent address.”); see, e.g., Sousa v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 817 F.2d 10, 10–11 (2d Cir.1987) (finding that plaintiff's failure to check his mailbox for five days was not unreasonable and thus holding that the......